The horror of the crimes of Joshua Jacques, who murdered his girlfriend and three members of her family in south London while high on drugs, is made all the worse because Jacques should never have been free to kill. The 29-year-old, who was jailed for life last week for the brutal murder of his partner Samantha Drummonds, her mother Tanysha, her grandmother Dolet, and her grandmother’s partner, Denton, in April 2022, had a string of convictions, including for drug offences and robbery. At the time of the murders, Jacques had been out of prison for less than six months. He was considered high risk, yet nothing was done to stop Jacques from destroying three generations of a family.

Jacques was left free to roam the streets

A report published today by the probation watchdog exposes the litany of failures leading to these senseless killings. It reveals that Jacques had, from the age of 17, when he first appeared in court, been a prolific offender. Over the next eight years, he was convicted of possession of an offensive weapon, robbery, multiple counts of criminal damage, possession of cannabis and driving offences. For these crimes, Jacques received just two prison sentences, one of twenty months (for the robbery) and one of eight weeks (for public order offences and criminal damage).

In April 2018, Jacques was sectioned under the Mental Health Act for six months. Whatever treatment he received, by November 2019 he was back in court, where he was sentenced to 51 months for supplying heroin and crack cocaine, and for possession of cannabis. Jacques was sent to prison. Before his release, he was allocated a probation officer who would be responsible for supervising him in the community. This probation officer prepared two Offender Assessments, between August and October 2021. Both concluded that Jacques ‘posed a high risk of serious harm to the public’. As a result, he was referred to MAPPA (a multi-agency public protection arrangement), meaning that the police, healthcare and probation were meant to communicate regularly to share information about him and manage the risk he posed. Given Jacques’ risk, staff decided to release him to an Approved Premises; a halfway house between prison and the community where he could be monitored.

Jacques was released in November 2021. Shortly afterwards, his probation officer began a new, detailed Offender Assessment. This was never completed. In the weeks that followed, Jacques repeatedly broke the rules at the Approved Premises, was absent from work and acquired a vehicle – something he was not allowed to do under the terms of his release – without informing probation.

Still, Jacques was left free to roam the streets. In January 2022, probation management decided not to recall Jacques to prison, despite him breaching his licence conditions. On 11 January, Jacques moved out of the Approved Premises into privately rented accommodation. Two days later, he was arrested when driving a vehicle. He refused to provide a saliva or blood sample and appeared to be handling stolen goods. Probation intended to issue a ‘decision not to recall letter’, explaining that the breach could have resulted in Jacques’ recall to prison. In fact, they sent a lower level warning letter.

Before his sentencing for these offences, Jacques met with a court probation officer who prepared a pre-sentence report. In this conversation, he reported ‘poor mental health’, and the report recommended against prison as it would ‘jeopardise his accommodation and education opportunities’.

On 2 March 2022, six weeks before the killings, Jacques received a suspended sentence. A new Offender Assessment was prepared, reiterating that he posed a ‘high risk of serious harm to the public’. In the weeks that followed, there were regular complaints against Jacques about loud noise and antisocial behaviour. Jacques also threatened another resident. When probation officers visited the flat, Jacques told them he was using cannabis daily, and was reminded about the impact this could have on his mental health, but no action was taken.

Despite having reoffended, using cannabis daily, threatened a neighbour and breached the terms of his licence, the MAPPA group decided to cease monitoring Jacques. On the 30 March, Jacques’ probation officer noticed that he had a social media app on his phone which put him in breach of his Criminal Behaviour Order. The probation officer did not report this breach to the police.

Jacques’ final meeting with probation was on 20 April. He arrived late and described his cannabis use as being ‘at a considerable level’. Five days later, in the middle of the night, he butchered Drummonds and her family with a knife in Bermondsey. Armed officers discovered Jacques naked and lying in the bathroom in a praying position, screaming ‘Allah, take me!’ and ‘God please forgive me’.

How was Jacques ever left free to kill? The Chief Inspector of Probation, Martin Jones, makes the failings plain; a dangerous man like Jacques should have been supervised by an experienced, qualified probation officer, but instead he was ‘incorrectly allocated to a newly qualified probation officer who had only finished their training three months before’. Inexperienced staff did not know how to ‘respond adequately’ and had no ‘confidence in decisions made by their line manager’. Despite clear evidence that when Jacques’ mental health was unstable he became violent, nothing was done when he told probation court staff that his mental health was in decline.

It’s the same story again; inexperienced staff, lack of insight and poor support for mental health and drug issues, and bad management. Four people are dead. The Probation Service has accepted all the findings of the report, but only the government can deliver the proper funding and experienced staff which might have made a difference in this awful case.